describe_table

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses output content but does not state that operation is read-only, permissions required, or error behavior if table missing. Adequate but not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence covering all listed outputs. Concise but could benefit from structured list for clarity. No wasted words, but front-loading is minimal.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, so description should compensate. Lists outputs but lacks detail on structure (e.g., format of constraints, indexes). Moderately complete for a describe tool but could specify return format explicitly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond schema. Baseline 3 given coverage; no added value for parameters themselves, only output description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Tool name 'describe_table' and description clearly state verb 'describe' and resource 'table'. Lists specific outputs (columns, primary key, foreign keys, etc.) which distinguishes it from siblings like get_indexes (only indexes) and get_relationships (only foreign keys).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Implies use for comprehensive table structure, but does not mention alternatives or exclude usage for simple tasks. Lacks context on when to prefer this over get_indexes or get_relationships.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.